AYODHYA VERDICT
- Law Mates
- Nov 10, 2020
- 8 min read
INTRODUCTION
The case that is RAM MANDIR- BABRI MASJID CASE that is M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors not a year but a case that is 500 years old.
The main question on which this whole case was based was OWNERSHIP OF LAND and from which time we will consider that.
From the year 1528 when it is believed by locals that the temple was destroyed and BABRI MASJID was built during the rule of Mughal Emperor, Babur. Or;
From the year 1949 when LORD RAM IDOL was placed. Or;
From 1992 when Babri Masjid was demolished.
We will further discuss
● What was the judgment by Allahabad High Court and why its order was stayed by the honorable Supreme Court?
● What were the reports of the Archeological Survey of India?
● Why did mediation fail?
● And most importantly, all the proofs and demands three parties associated with this case. Parties related are:
1. Gopal Singh Visharad is an individual who claims he has the right to worship Lord Ram at Ayodhya.
2. The Nirmohi Akhara, one of the three parties who was offered a portion of the ownership as part of the Allahabad High Court verdict
3. The Sunni Waqf Board also offered a portion; and Ram Lalla, the deity, who through a Shebait claims full ownership of the place.
HISTORY OF RAM MANDIR- BABRI MASJID CASE:
In 1528, the commander of Babur, Mir Baqi constructed Babri Masjid in honor of Babur. It was locally believed that Masjid was made after demolishing the Temple.
1.1. This remarks the first riot between the Hindus and the Muslims from 1853 to 59
1.2. This made the British government interfere and, hence it was decided that land will be used by both. The area inside the temple will be used by the Muslims and the area outside the temple will be used by the Hindus. And fencing was made.
Then in 1885, for the first time, the case was filed in the court by Mahant Raghubar Das[1] seeking permission to construct a temple on the Ram chabutra (adjoining the Babri structure).
Then on 23 December 1949, when Lord Rama’s idol was placed inside the Mosque and Hindus started to worship the main area where lord Rama’s idol was placed.
3.1. Due to this the government in order to control the situation closed the whole area and imposed a complete ban on entering.
This order of government led to several filings of cases to remove this ban.
3.1.1. In 1950, a case by Mahant Ram Chandra Das was filed that was a case of the Right to worship.
3.1.1.1. Vishwa Hindu Parishad made an action committee.
3.1.2. In 1959, A case was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara, to get possession of the whole area.
3.1.3. In 1961, the Sunni Waqf Board filed a case to get the possession of Babri Masjid.
In 1986, the Court of Faizabad allowed the Hindus to worship inside the temple.
4.1. Not being happy with the decision the Muslims made a committee named Babri Masjid Action Committee.
In 1989, one more case i.e. Ram Lalla Virajman was filed to get possession of the whole land.
In 1990, BJP leader, Lal Krishn Advani, along with his confidant Pramod Mahajan, started his Rath Yatra after offering puja at Somnath Temple in Gujarat. The plan was chalked out such that after covering till Bihar, the yatra would eventually culminate at Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.
6.1. But due to the increasing disturbance between the two sects, L.K. Advani was arrested in Bihar.
6.2. This arrest led consequently to the support taken back by the BJP from the government of V.P. Singh.
In 1991, again to control the situation, the UP government took control of the disputed area
On 6 December 1992, the Masjid was unlawfully demolished by the Kar Sevaks, based on the abovementioned local belief.
On 16 December 1992, Liberhan Committee was formed in order to inquire about the reasons and parties or people that caused the demolition.
In the year 2002, when there was a BJP government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpai started an Ayodhya Vibhag, The main aim of the committee was the resolution between the two sects.
In April 2002, 3 judge bench was constituted at Allahabad High Court to decide the possession of the land;
11.1. The bench constitutes:
1. Justice Sudhir Agrawal
2. Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan
3. Justice D.V. Sharma
11.2. Allahabad High Court directed the Archeological Survey of India to investigate, prepare, and submit a report.
11.3. As per the reports by ASI there was a temple in the 12th century and a mosque was constructed in 1528, but there’s no evidence available of the period between this respective time period.
On 3 September 2010, keeping all the pieces of evidence and reports by ASI in mind, Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court ruled by distributing the land between all three parties or divided the land into 3 parts:
12.1. The area where Ram murti was placed was given to Ram Lalla Virajman;
12.2. The areas like Sita Rasoi, Bhandara, and Ram chabutra were given to Nirmohi Akhada.
12.3. And the rest was given to the Sunni Waqf board.
On 9th May 2011, the Supreme court put a stay on the order by Allahabad High Court.
In February 2010, a case was filed by Subramanian Swamy in Supreme Court to build Ram Mandir; Chief Justice of Supreme court of that time, Justice JS Khehar directed to form a committee outside the court, to resolve the dispute.
Till December 2017, 32 cases were filed against the judgment of Allahabad High court and hence decided that proceedings of this case will start in January 2019; For the proceedings, the Supreme court composed a bench including
Justice Ranjan Gogoi
Justice S A Bobde
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Justice Ashok Bhushan
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
On 8 March 2019, the Supreme court advised to settle the dispute outside the court by court-regulated mediation; And in May the mediation submitted the final report in the Supreme court.
Afterward, the case was heard by the Supreme Court from 6th august 2019 to 14th October 2019 and reserved the judgment; moreover, directed the parties to Submit their Moulding of Relief.
JUDGEMENT:
This case is the second longest case in the history of the Honorable Supreme Court with a duration of 40 days.
The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision on 9 November 2019 sought the route for the development of a Ram Temple at the contested site at Ayodhya and guided the Center to designate a 5-acre of the land plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque. Here's a gander at the significant parts of the milestone judgment that examined the cases in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case.
The SC coordinated that the ownership of the contested 2.77-section of land was Ram Lalla Virajman (the exemplification of the Hindu God), whom it distinguished as a juristic individual. The Center must inside a quarter of a year plan a plan to set up a trust and hand the land to it. "[It] will make fundamental arrangements with respect to the working of the trustor body including... the development of a sanctuary and all vital... matters," the supreme court said.
The court guided the Center and UP government to designate 5 acres of land at any other site in Ayodhya inside a quarter of a year to the Sunni Central Waqf Board to develop a mosque. "The land will be distributed either by the Central government out of the land procured under the Ayodhya Act 1993 or the state govt (UP) at a reasonable conspicuous spot in Ayodhya... The Sunni Central Waqf Board would be at freedom... to make all important strides for the development of a mosque," the court said.
The choice depended on proof of ownership of the contested land. "Hindus worship at Ramchabutra, Sita Rasoi and at different strict spots... plainly showed their open, restrictive and unrestricted ownership of the external yard," it said. The SC likewise said that namaz was not offered consistently in the internal segment before 1857. Interestingly, proof focuses on consistent worship by the Hindus. In this manner, it discovered Ram Lalla as having a superior case to ownership than the Sunni Waqf Board.
The SC said the land being given to Muslims was a direct result of the unlawful destruction of the mosque. It stated: "The Muslims were confiscated upon the contamination of the mosque on Dec 22-23, 1949 which was at last demolished on 6 Dec 1992... This court... must guarantee that wrong committed is cured. Equity would not win if the court were to disregard the privilege of Muslims who've been denied the structure of the mosque through methods which ought not to have been utilized."
Putting aside the 2010 Allahabad high court decision that trifurcated the contested site among the Sunni Waqf Board, Ram Lalla Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara, the SC said the decision "defies logic and is contrary to settled principles of law." The Supreme court said that the "three-route bifurcation by the HC was legitimately unreasonable". It held that "the high court was called upon to choose the subject of the title, especially in the suits... However, the high court received a way not open to it."
CONCLUSION AND PERSONAL VIEWS:
At its core, there is a confusion that this was a contest between two networks or beliefs - regardless of whether there was a temple or mosque at the contested site. Notwithstanding, the debate was exclusively a common one, a title suit for the case of property. Basically, there was an inquiry under the watchful eye of the court with regards to who was the proprietor of the 2.77 sections of land of contested land. The Supreme Court, through a 1,045-page judgment, granted this contested land for the development of Ram Mandir and maintained the juristic privileges of Bhagwan Sri Ram Lalla Virajman. The proportion choosing this decision or purpose for it was absolutely on the setup standards of proof, and just came through after the two sides were given a reasonable hearing. This decision was a triumph of the fair treatment of law and is a genuine appearance of our confidence in the legal executive and the rule that everyone must follow.
In the course of recent days, a great deal has been said about the decision and the function of the legal executive, however similarly critical was the part of the authority of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In January this year, a few tumults and libertarian requests were made looking for a mandate by the administration to determine the Ayodhya debate. The Prime Minister on several events completely expressed that the issue of Ram Janmasthan ought to be chosen inside the system of the constitution. This was once more characteristic of the political development at the show and the mental fortitude to summon away from what might have been a politically rewarding choice.
In the previous barely any years a propensity, rather lamentable one, has been launched of making a decision about the Supreme Court based on the decisions given, on whether it suits a specific account on side of the political range. Regularly, it happens that no adjudicators are saved from the incomparable murmurs in the halls of the courts. It was symbolic that there were sure articles in the online press which went to the degree of reprimanding an appointed authority, known for his reformist reasoning, that he ought to have conveyed a disagreeing decision and by being important for the consistent decision, the article expressed that he had allowed himself to down. This was yet again an attack on the independence of the judiciary and a futile attempt to browbeat it as well.
Author – MRIDULA VATS
BA LLB 1st SEMESTER
AMITY UNIVERSITY GURUGRAM
REFERENCES:
● https://dstvdarjeeling.com/how-supreme-court-resolved-decades-old-ayodhya-dispute-delivered-courageous-verdict/
●
[1] filed suit no 61/280 of 1885
Comments